cubbieinexile

You find a team with low slugging yet high OBP first. Rod Carew Carney Lansford Luis Castillo Willie Randolph Jason Kendall Kenny Lofton Wade Boggs Roger Cedeno Tony Phillips Brett Butler Ozzie Smith See a trend? Most high OBP low SLG guys are leadoff hitters and most have good averages, just not a lot of power vs. Sammy Sosa Tony Armas Juan Gonzalez Jose Canseco Richie Sexson Andre Dawson Matt Williams Javy Lopez Dave Winfield

I may be a Cub Fan but I can see the writing on the wall. Sammy Sosa had a great season. Bonds had the greatest. I see no reason why a Cub fan can't accept that or even appreciate Sosa's season without having to knock another player to do so. First a few flaws on peoples argument for Sosa. One: Sosa was not the main reason the Cubs had a winning record. If you look at the last 4 Cub seasons you will see that the Cubs only do well when there pitching is good. Pitching is the main reason the Cubs won games this year, and in 98, and in 99 before the pitching staff collapsed in the summer. Not Sosa. If Sosa was the main reason we won games then shouldn't we of had winning seasons in each of the last four seasons. Does anybody here actually think we would have had a winning record if we had last years pitching staff? For Crying out loud this year’s staff gave up 200 less runs!!! That's right 200 less runs!! While the offense added only 13 more runs. In fact this year's pitching staff was the best staff we had since the strike shortened 1995 season. And if you discount that season you have to go back to the less offensive era of 1992 in which we had Maddux and Morgan with ERA's of less than 3.00 and Castillo with a 3.46. Our pitching staff was why we improved by 23 games. Two: Everybody likes to look at the other Cubs player’s numbers to point out the fact that he was the only one performing. The fact of the matter is that is not true. Only one other player on the Cubs team was allowed to get as many plate appearances as Sosa. And that player was Young everybody else got platooned or sat regularly. But if you look at their percentages you see that there player on our team that performed well. After all we did have the 7th best offense in the league and since Sosa only hit 64 home runs somebody else had to be on base for him to get his RBI's and somebody had to knock him in for him to get his runs. Matt Stairs and Ricky Gutierrez both performed their roles very well. McGriff, White, Mueller, and Deshields all did very well when they played. Sosa only knocked in 160 of the 777 runs the Cubs scored. To say he was the sole offense of the Cubs is ridiculous. Now then some of you might be saying that he sets the table that he provides everybody else with opportunities. By getting on base and being such a threat that pitchers don't pitch to him. Well guess what that is what happens to Bonds all the time for the last 6 years. Yet all of you guys deduct points from Bonds when people bring this up, but yet don't hesitate to award Sosa points on the very same issue. Bonds makes the players around him better, it is that plain and simple. If you can't see that then you really don't understand the basic principles of baseball. Third: Sosa had way more opportunities to score or drive in runs than Bonds. If you look at each players percentages you see that Bonds projects similar totals to Sosa's RBI's and Run scored. BBonds is right, if you have ever watched more than one Giants game you will see that nobody pitched to him. Even when they didn't intentionally pitch to him they gave him nothing to hit. Was I the only Cub fan who watched a Giants game this year? It seems most of us chose not to see that most of the pitches thrown his way were unhittable. Two other reasons why Bonds numbers were low are Aurilia and Kent. Aurilia lowered Bonds number by not being your typical #2 hitter. Aurilia could have been the #3 hitter on most teams but because Bonds was there they put him second and cleared the basepaths more times than any other #2 guy. Most #2 guys when they get a hit it will be a single or a double thus giving #3 guy an extra run to drive in. In fact having Aurilia bat in front of him only produced 7 more runners reaching base from the #2 slot (Hits+BB-HR), and in fact the Cubs 1 and 2 hitters got on base more times for Sosa than the Giants hitters did for Bonds. That decreased Bonds RBI totals but Aurilia benefited from Bonds presence. Pitchers could not pitch around him because if they did they had to pitch to Bonds with runners on. Bonds only had 198 AB with runners on while Sosa had 272 AB. If you gave Bonds the same number of ABs he would have had 125 RBI's instead of the 91 we had and that would give him one more RBI than Sosa in the same situation. Bonds would have finished with 171 RBI's given the same opportunities. Now then Bonds runs scored suffered because the supposedly great Kent could not drive him home. Bonds reached base 266 times (H+BB+HBP-HR-CS) and yet his team only managed to get him home 56 times for ratio of basically once out of every 5 opportunities. While Sosa reached base 245 times and his team managed to knock him in 82 times for a ratio of once every three times. Also note that Sosa never stole a base this year while Bonds stole 13, so Bonds actually helped his team increase his chances of scoring by moving into scoring position more often. If the Giants and their supposedly better offense knocked in Bonds at the same rate as Sosa’s team did for him he would have 162 runs scored!! So how anyone could say that Bonds supporting cast was better is beyond me. If Bonds had been the Cubs #3 hitter he would have had 162 runs and 171 RBI and who knows how many HR. While Sosa on the Giants would of had 120 runs and 126 RBI. Runs and RBI's are team dependant to attach them to a lone player as if he was the main reason is foolish. The only time a player is solely responsible for Runs or RBI's is a home run and sometimes not even then. So you have to base your decisions on ratio. What a player did when given the chance. And Bonds in almost every case has a better ratio than Sosa. All he needed was the opportunity unfortunately his team and the opposing pitchers did not give him as many chances as they did for Sosa. So that basically. . . .oh wait you mean this year! My bad sorry. Andruw Jones should win it. . . Just joking wanted to see if you got the end.

Preston Wilson at a reasonable contract length and amount is not a bad option for CF. He would probably put up slightly better numbers then Burnitz this year with a higher chance of a breakout plus he would be playing CF to boot. I would put him at around .340 to .350 OBP with a .480 to .500 SLG and around 30 homers. With .330 and .460 being the lowend. That way you have Murton, Wilson, and Hairston as your 4th OF plus a mystery guest at Right Field. Outfield free agents are a scary group this year full of scrubs and old guys so if anything its a trade that is going to have to make it happen in right field. you always have the Corey chit, plus the pitching chit. But looking around the majors I can't picture any team making a trade. Though of course my dream trade would be with Boston and Manny.

It's almost impossible to use Neifi Perez correctly and get his production to be effective. His skill happens to be defense, and to have value on defense means you must play a lot to build up the value. It isn't like pinch hitting where you can come up to bat once hit a homer and then sit down. You mus be out there for a lot of innings to be of any value to your team. Consequently you must take your turn with the bat in order stay on the field. His bat is his weakness and it negates any of his value with the glove.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2211753 By the way, note that Lawton did not appeal his suspension. According to Will Carroll / USA Today Sports Weekly, the A.L. playoff offender was in fact appealing his suspension. If Will Carroll and USA Today Sports Weekly are correct, there is another suspect that is still at large. It could mean there is another or he could just be playing with a legal language loop-hole, or just out and out lying to get ahead of the mob. He could very well have appealed or protested the finding of steroids but not the penalty phase of the decision. or he could simply be hiding behind the confidentially agreement and lying and knowing that it will not be contradicted. Mcuh like the owners publicly making false economic statements and knowing the players cannot say a peep to the contrary.

I don't think the conversation should be about GM's who use stats and those who don't use stats. They all use stats, they always did. I have a friend who is a retired Chicago White Sox Media exec who used to hang out with Charlie O of KC. Back then Charlie had his insurance business based in Chicago, and was the front office of the A's. Do you know how Charlie made his trades and signings for hitters? He would look at batting average. Thats right batting average, he would look at their careers, see if their average was stable, did it fluctuate, was it declining. Thats how he made his picks, so looking at stats is nothing new. Whats new and what should be talked about is what a GM values. Is a GM looking for retreads, is he looking for youth, does he value pitching, does he value defense. How does he value it. Does he perfer to go with a veteran glove man with no stick over a unproven youngster with a glove and no stick. What is he willing to spend money on? Will he spend 8 million dollars and 4 years on a 30+ league average second basemen? Will he commit 20 year old kid from single A instead? Then from there what is important is his organizational structure. What is his plan for the minors, for free agents, for foriegn development? Who are the people he is putting in charge, what do they do and how do they do it? Those are the questions that are important, not whether or not a GM likes walks.

Thats the name we have all been waiting for? Geez, talk about drama.

It looks like Theo had a clash with his mentor, Lucchino. Nor is Lucchino old guard. So Theo leaving wasn't the old guard puching out the new guard. It was the new guard fighting with the new guard. Over in LA you have a new owner firing his first GM. He is a new owner and he wants results. This off-season he cleaned house. Got rid of Depo and Tracy. Sort of like Snyder and the redskins.

Yeah they sured small balled there way through the playoffs, just the Angels a few years back.

Could not have said it better. If it's possible to spend $100 million and still be cheap the Tribco has done it. Making the signing of Carlos Beltran contingent upon the trading of Sammy Sosa when you have the resources the Trib does is cheap and small-time thinking. But when your only goal is to spend just enough money to entice people to come out to the ballpark this is the kind of team you get. Yeah and they could have gotten JD DRew too, or Jason Giambi or any other number of players that were a bust. If the Cubs had Carlos a lot of people would be howling for his head right now saying how much of a bust he was compared to the salary he was taking.

He bought into the MAvs and turned them around long before moneyball was written. Nor one can model anytihng off of Moneyball its a book written about people and their views. It is not a manual nor is it anything close to that.

I'm sure that is how the Sox fans felt after 84, 89, 98, and 2003.

Cub fans should be that last group of people mad at band-wagon fans. Nobody remembers 1984, 1998, and 2003? Whats happening for the Sox is no different then what happened for the Cubs and any other team that wins games. You think the Angels were this popular before they went to the World Series?

So building a brand new park would actually reduce attendance? Interesting theory. I guess all those fans who flock to a new stadium don't exist. People go to wrigley not because of Wrigley but because of what happens at Wrigley an around it. Unless they built out in the sticks I don't see that being a problem with a new stadium. Cub fans for some reason like to look for the silliest reasons for the teams losing. They'll cut off their own nose just to think they are doing something to improve the their face. In the ends 5 outs. It happens differently and nobody says the Cubs can't win with Wrigley or with the Tribune.

Pudge was always a risk and I think a lot of people were against it. Thome would have been nice but not at the contract length he demanded. Tejada? Tejada's the type of player that scares me to death. paying him the money and giving him the length he got would give me serious heartburn. ARod? Sure I would want him, but 10 years 250 million would make anyone think twice. JD Drew? Huge risk and everybody knew it. Beltre? Huge risk becuase he only had the one year Beltran? Again another risk but this time he got the big playoff performance to get the check. Randy Johnson? Scary proposition. Almost any of the FA from Glaus to Mags to Javier have huge risks involved that get worse because most of them demand long term contracts. About the only A+ free agent I wish the Cubs had was Manny Ramirez.

You mean like hiring Dallas Green to build one of the best (and expensive) minor league and scouting organization? Or do you mean by hiring MacPhail who built a winner in Minnesota, and then proceeded to build one of the best farm systems in the majors and send the Cubs to the playoffs twice.

5 outs. 5 outs again rears its head. Apparently it was the Tribune pretending to be Bartman that night, apparently it was the Tribune manning the SS spot. Its odd because somehow the Marlins have the desire to win championships (because they won them so therefore by your logic the team must have had the desire to win) yet they are an organization that routinely destroys their team. Has an owner that fellow owners sued in a RICO case because they theought he was purposefully destroying the team. The Tribune company has not owned the Cubs for 100 years. Blaming them for what Wrigley did in 1950 is not even close to being right. They have owned them since around 1980 and in that time they have tried to field a team that wins it all. They have come close but just because they didn't get there doesn't mean they lack the desire to do so. 5 outs, one innnig ends differently and nobody is complaining about the Tribune. .

5 outs, 5 outs is all that makes your point seem valid. They spend money and lots of it on players and players that might never see time in the bigs. They spend more money that some teams probably even take in. But because they don't spend 200 million dollars you think you have a point. The cubs with Sosa contract have probably the 4th highest payroll in the game, and they will probably retain that spot next year So who should they have spent all that money on? Jim Thome? JD Drew? Randy Johnson? Kevin Brown? Jason Giambi? Jeff Weaver? Javier Vazquez? Secondly you are also ignoring the economic reality of the payroll structure. The Cubs have players with starting jobs that are youngsters and not paid their fullest worth, guys like Prior and Zambrano. Should they then overypay for a guy sitting on the bench? This is a team with a starting pitching staff that many thought was the best in the NL. Should they go out and sign Randy and Javier so Zambrano and Prior can sit on the bench? This is a team that many believe had one of the best third basemens in the game. Should they trade Aramis so they can spend millions more on Glaus or Beltre? This is a team that many believed picked up the best SS available in the market, should they have gotten Eckstein instead? This is a team that traded away a young prospect that they picked up cheap for a first basemen who was going to get rapidly epxpensive. What should they have done?

It's a silly argument. IF the Tribune doesn't truly care about winning then why do they spend so much money? Why do they shell out all that money to the prospects? Why don't they act like Minnesota and pass on Prior, or like the Sox and pass on Hill, instead of shelling out the big bucks for them? They spend money for major league talent and they spend money on minor league talent. If they didn't care about winning they wouldn't be shelling money to prospects.

Over the last two decades? Well let see the tribune company brought in Dallas Green who philosophy and organization did win a World Series and build a great team. He comes to Chicago builds a great farm team, build a good team comes one game away from going to the World Series. After that injuries sidetrack the team for awhile but they are back again with a great core that just doesn't get it done in the end. Then along comes MacPhail who philosphy and organization happened to win 2 world series. He comes along and happens to build a great farm team and a good major league team. His team comes within 5 outs of making the world series. So far to me it looks like in the last two decades the Tribune has brought in the people to get it down. It hasn't but that doesn't mean they didn't try or that they failed.

Scotty had the Corey/Dunston disease. He would hit a homer and then for weeks afterwards try to hit more home runs, causing him to do some nice flyball outs. Apparently this year was the first year the coaches finally got it through to him that he wasn't Barry Bonds.

You are right it is hysterically lame. WE have a different WS winner every year now for 6 years. Of the 12 teams to play in the World Series we have had 10 different teams. We have had teams like the Rangers, Indians, A's, Mariners, Twins, Giants, Astros, and Cardinals rise and fall from greatness to not greatness. The same team does not win every year in Baseball. Baseball playing in a non football system does this: The best of the best compete for the title for a good stretch of years. The middle of the road is constantly churning. All the while the bottom of the barrel can change quickly with competent management.

No the Cubs would not have. AS I already showed the Cubs without a DH had 1 more shutout then the Sox and their vaunted offense. Overall the Cubs had less 2 runs or less then the Sox did. So no the Cubs would not have lost that game 2-0. You are not doing your homework at all on this matter. Nor does being the best in one run games mean much. Unless they can do that consistently from year to year and even throughout the season it means nothing. Lots of teams do well one year or in one part of the season in one run games but then they are not able to duplicate it. In todays games scoring 2 runs is easy, scoring 3 runs is easy. Allowing only 0 runs, or 1 run or 2 runs is not easy. Winning a game 2-1 does not mean the offense did its job. It means the pitching staff did a great job and the hitters did a mediocre job. Just because they won doesn't mean the hitters are good or are doing their job.

the 2 currently for sale on ebay are at $88 and $200. I would check out Amazon and Barnes and Noble.

Well his money and the fact that everybody and their mother get into the playoffs in the NBA